Human Nature

[The Grand Nudger]

I also contend the claim about human nature making us believe in lies. If it is human nature that makes so then clearly some of us are naturally better and other worse. It's a claim that I see as both absurd and classist. To say it plainly - I think that people voting on trump (or kaczyński in my case) are dumb or desperate in more charitable interpretation of their actions. I'm however no better than them, nor naturally superior. I simply have benefit of better education, cultural capital and not being  someone who is really fucked by current system. If it would be human nature at fault then how one group of people would vote "right" and other "wrong" without one group being worse? To me it is nothing more than return to idiotic discourse of the past when nobles were naturally better than commoners, or men naturally better than women.

By being in the same position as the guy who does the fucked up thing, and not doing the fucked up thing, yeah, you've done better than they have.  There's always tomorrow to fuck up and do the wrong thing (or the right one for our fascists).   That's how we can settle into whatever level of collective dumbfuckery we sink to.  There are toilet seats to leave up if you never manage to do another wrong.  Classism, in contrast, suggests (or perceives) that the facts of these matters are not or may not be the right or wrong maker.  That membership in some social class is, instead.

We're remarkably similar to each other in many , and many surprising, ways. IMO. I'd call it about a wash for humanity, fascists stick out as particularly shitty because of this.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are plenty of other discussions about that.

Sorry for not instantly agreeing with absurd take and looking for more reasonable explanation. Also it may be that you answered before my edit appeared so I will repeat it here:

If it is human nature at fault then why there is still democracy in the world? Are Americans are naturally deficient and thus prone to vote on fascists? Fascist trash in other countries can't beat propaganda "perfection" of immigrants eating cats? Parts of Europe are settled by naturally superior people who don't buy into demagoguery and propaganda? Surely if it is human nature at fault then at least one of the above must be true.

You can't say that above aren't about human nature thus I hope that you will answer.

Well, we're younger.  It has been much longer since we had to feel the effects of policies like these at home, too.  The last people who had to experience this sad thing play out abroad are less than 1% of the population.  We're also nationalists - and exceptionalists.  So..yeah, perhaps we are more prone to vote for fascists than some other people.  That wouldn't be human nature, but american culture.  If so.  But the question remains, why do americans...and other people, choose fascism?  What is it about fascism that appeals to something with a global base of interest or persuasion?  I'd say a bunch of myths - couple with frustration or panic.  They think the fascists are competent.  Yeah, they might solve a problem "the wrong way", but by god (often literally), they'll solve them.  Plus I think people like being talked up, you know?  

If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

Lyndon B Johnson.

-Seems to work about the same way everywhere, to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that through history, the human proclivity to tolerate, and often actively endorse, authoritarian regimes which themselves appeal to human bigotries is evidence that humans are indeed very often twisted. That's not to absolve politician of their guilt; in fact, it sort of highlights it, in the sense that they prey upon these proclivities in order to attain and exercise power.

Absolving common men of their tolerance for the tyranny of leadership is no more equitable than absolving tyrants for their taking advantage of that tolerance. It's true that some systems are so overbearing that the individual cannot stand up without being hammered down; North Korea comes to mind. But in other cases (Russia, China?) it may be that the populace accepts "stability" and surrenders some freedoms.

Is this symbiosis, is this hopeful stupidity, or is this keeping your head down?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Thumpalumpacus

Trump is a fauxpulist, for example. He's not white welfaring his chosen people to the promised land. He's cashing in on marks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

@Thumpalumpacus

Trump is a fauxpulist, for example.  He's not white welfaring his chosen people to the promised land.  He's cashing in on marks.

... and at the same time selling supporters stuff like being able to be openly bigoted. It's a shitty quid pro quo where the cunts in the underclass feel empowered, and the cunts in the upperclass feel -- well, are -- enriched.

Blaming politicians for this is a sort of "Great Man" sense of history. Sure, a "Great Man" comes along every so often, but don't think for a moment he isn't riding the tides. Hitler capitalized on centuries of Central European antisemitism. Abe Lincoln made hay out of an abolitionist movement that was gaining ground for decades. Winston Churchill earned the good part of his reputation by giving voice to British stubbornness in 1940.

[Ivan Denisovich]

By being in the same position as the guy who does the fucked up thing, and not doing the fucked up thing, yeah, you've done better than they have.  There's always tomorrow to fuck up and do the wrong thing (or the right one for our fascists).   That's how we can settle into whatever level of collective dumbfuckery we sink to.  There are toilet seats to leave up if you never manage to do another wrong.  Classism, in contrast, suggests (or perceives) that the facts of these matters are not or may not be the right or wrong maker.  That membership in some social class is, instead.

We're remarkably similar to each other in many , and many surprising, ways.  IMO.  I'd call it about a wash for humanity, fascists stick out as particularly shitty because of this.

I don't contend the fact I'm doing better than some people I deem idiots but I strongly disagree with this being result of human nature. I'm not ubermensch, nor they are untermenschen. It's obviously some other factor at play be it cultural capital, knowledge of history or grandparents in concentration camps.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would it be the result of human nature. You are a human. Your "human nature" refers to those things you share with everyone else, not what separates you from everyone (or anyone) else.

-but yes, we have a nature, and all of those other things too. Some of us, anyway. Others, not so much. Probably more accurate to say that the contents of such knowledge sets are not identical across societies and time and individuals. How much cultural capital and knowledge or history of grandparents in concentration camps do you suspect the average trumper has? Even, so....sure, if normal human behavior™ is a generally slim but variable range there will probably be some people who are "naturally worse" than others. We don't leave our kids with rapists when we can help it, for example. The same would be true for decency. We have experience...all of us, with at least one uncommonly kindhearted person. That's where you shelve the little bastards.

In sum...I don't believe I could turn my back on a maga nut for a second. I would expect better outcomes from you regardless of our (seemingly) vast disagreement on so much we both believe to be of moral import. Foxhole friendship, lol.

[Ivan Denisovich]

@Thumpalumpacus

Trump is a fauxpulist, for example.  He's not white welfaring his chosen people to the promised land.  He's cashing in on marks.

... and at the same time selling supporters stuff like being able to be openly bigoted. It's a shitty quid pro quo where the cunts in the underclass feel empowered, and the cunts in the upperclass feel -- well, are -- enriched.

Blaming politicians for this is a sort of "Great Man" sense of history. Sure, a "Great Man" comes along every so often, but don't think for a moment he isn't riding the tides. Hitler capitalized on centuries of Central European antisemitism. Abe Lincoln made hay out of an abolitionist movement that was gaining ground for decades. Winston Churchill earned the good part of his reputation by giving voice to British stubbornness in 1940.

I think that Hitler had luck with Great Depression as without it I can't really see his party ever becoming anything other than fringe. In 1928 elections he got merely 2.63%, only after financial crisis started his party got more votes. Other than that I would agree "Great Men" are great because they seize the moment. Lenin made correct decision when he urged takeover instead of waiting for example but no matter his personal skill and charm it wouldn't work in different circumstances (namely without Russian state being already in pieces).

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and at the same time selling supporters stuff like being able to be openly bigoted. It's a shitty quid pro quo where the cunts in the underclass feel empowered, and the cunts in the upperclass feel -- well, are -- enriched.

Blaming politicians for this is a sort of "Great Man" sense of history. Sure, a "Great Man" comes along every so often, but don't think for a moment he isn't riding the tides. Hitler capitalized on centuries of Central European antisemitism. Abe Lincoln made hay out of an abolitionist movement that was gaining ground for decades. Winston Churchill earned the good part of his reputation by giving voice to British stubbornness in 1940.

I think that Hitler had luck with Great Depression as without it I can't really see his party ever becoming anything other than fringe. In 1928 elections he got merely 2.63%, only after financial crisis started his party got more votes. Other than that I would agree "Great Men" are great because they seize the moment. Lenin made correct decision when he urged takeover instead of waiting for example but no matter his personal skill and charm it wouldn't work in different circumstances (namely without Russian state being already in pieces).

Was Lenin's decision correct because it was correct, or was it correct because he read the moment and decided to act upon the discontent of the time? In other words, was he screwing the people, or were the people empowering him?

Puts another laughable cast upon who:whom, now doesn't it?

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why would it be the result of human nature.  You are a human.  Your "human nature" refers to those things you share with everyone else, not what separates you from everyone (or anyone) else.

-but yes, we have a nature, and all of those other things to.  Some of us, anyway.  Others, not so much.  How much cultural capital and knowledge or history of grandparents in concentration camps do you suspect he average trumper has?

Human nature simply have no place in such talks as it is some absurd, reductive take suggesting taking no other factors into consideration. It's bullshit just like when people are saying that communism was great but human nature prevented it from working. Also human nature compels some to vote on trump but others on Harris? How the fuck does it work?

Look on nazi election results - before Great Depression human nature was resistant to their bullshit and afterwards it changed and become less so? It even sounds idiotic and far better explanation can be provided by pointing at nazis nationalist message, fear of communism and goebbels and company skilful propaganda. And of course it still leaves those who never voted on nazis. Was their nature even better?